swift bailiff and CTAX debt has levied on my car

[seanamarts]

Sorry guys but have to correct a point on here. The Bailiff CAN in fact take a vehicle on HP, but only if a certain amount has been paid off of it, between half and 3/4 one of the two, I cant recall which. So please get the advice right on here, telling someone that a bailiff cant take it then watching it happen can be very distressing.

 

Can you verify this please.

[seanamarts]

Interesting thanks PT,

[seanamarts]

That would be an interesting scenario, however it would be the person who instructed the bailiffs that should be held responsible. So it would be some one from the recovery department. But as usual they would just pass the buck. It would be never ending.

 

In hind site, the bailiff should be reported for the deception.

[seanamarts]

They have denied that on every visit that I offered them a payment agreement which they refused. This is a very typical procedure. Its basically your word against their's.

They are still insisting that their bailiff is called "Mr FisrtName Middlename" and not "Mr FirstName MiddleName Surname" as detailed on the bailiff search website. I would be inclined to show them a copy of register and ask to see a copy of the bailiffs certificate.

They are claiming that the £170 fee for "Attending with a vehicle with a view to removing" is legitimate, they say "Our bailiff is entitled to charge a fee for one attendance with a vehicle with a view to the removal of goods (where following the levy goods are not removed): reasonable costs. Mr MiddleName did attend with a vehicle with a view to the removal of goods, levied upon goods but did not remove those goods therefore the fee is applicable. The fee is not dependant on the Walking Possession Agreement being signed." Ask them where does this state in The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 sch5 he can charge this fee.

They still say the "Removal Fee / Where no sales takes place" of £22.50 is legitmate saying "“Where no sale takes place” fee of £22.50 has been charged. The fee is payable under heading “H” of the legislation where no sale takes place by reason of payment or tender and is payable once the account has been paid in full."

 

The head H fee should only be charged when items have been taken, I would also ask where this states in the in the regulations.

This complaint needs escalating to the next stage. I would now start to involve your MP

[seanamarts]

Thats good news, well done

[seanamarts]

Please dont give this up, it is what they are expecting you to do.

 

Have a read through these.

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1992/613/regulation/45/made

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1992/613/schedule/5/made

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1988/2050/article/10/made

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1988/2050/article/11/made

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1988/2050/article/12/made

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1988/2050/schedule/1/made

 

Have a read through these something may pop out at you ok. Please dont give up.

[seanamarts]

The purpose of a levy is in case that you do not pay the amount owed in a reasonable time or you refuse to pay etc. So basically it gives you a time for you to pay the amount and they hold your goods to ransom in case you dont. After this time has passed and they then come out in the view to take your goods then they can make that charge. What is the point of a levy if only to make more money for themselves.

 

The Head H fee is as others have pointed out and quite clearly states in sch 5 what this fee is for and that is basically a fee for their trouble for advertisements etc to sell your good just in case they have made arrangements to have your goods sold.

 

How can they charge this fee if they have only just made a levy, bailiffs are not fitted with a crystal ball.

 

Have you looked at the links I posted #85.

 

Ask you council, where it states in theThe Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 that they are allowed to charge these fees in the time that they have stated.

[seanamarts]

Some thoughts on the "Reasonable costs and fees incurred" for attending with a vehicle with a view to the removal of goods (where, following the levy, goods are not removed).

 

All fees and charges detailed in Schedule 5 of the Council Tax Regulations are the council's fees in law, both those that are prescribed and those that are simply stated as being "reasonable" in the legislation.

 

Part of the authority's contractual arrangements with the bailiff company will detail the fact that the council will allow the bailiff firm to retain the enforcement fees themselves. In fact external bailiff fees do not exist in the collection of council tax debt, they are always the council's enforcement fees.

 

Bearing in mind the above and assuming it was the council enforcing payment. The associated costs 'reasonably incurred' in connection with attending with a vehicle would be limited to those additional to what the council would incur in any event. In other words, internal bailiffs would be salaried so could not attribute costs to man hours while attending with a vehicle.

 

Because councils outsource enforcement to private companies, these firms have overheads such as in the case of Rossendales, a millionaire chairwoman's lifestyle. However, creating millionaires is not what the fees and charges connected with distress was intended. The council can not expect householders to meet the additional costs of sustaining private companies purely because it is convenient for councils to have this arrangement.

 

Another point:

 

If these costs are to reflect those reasonably incurred, why do they vary so much from one bailiff firm to another?

 

For the bailiff firm to justify that £170 was the reasonable cost incurred, the vehicle would have needed to have been purposely hired, solely for attending your home without other visits to any other debtors. I doubt this was the case, why not call them on it?

 

Excellently explained sir Maybe the OP can copy this and send it to the council

[seanamarts]

Hallowitch to the rescue, she comes up with the right stuff at the nick of time, saying that I thought I added that link, Got me on a bad day

 

The OP has now the info he needs to pass this to the council to be included in his complaint.

[seanamarts]

I would take this to the ombudsman, no matter how much you are going to complain to the council, they will find a loop to satisfy them that they are in the right.

 

You need to ask though, why they have not answered about the Head H fee. etc

[seanamarts]

£11 is the walking possession fee, this is a one off payment.

 

Are you going to contact the ombudsman?

[seanamarts]

I will try and explain this the best I can;

The point of a WPO is so items are left at the property as a ransom, so basically this gives you time to pay or a payment plan is set up. They cannot charge you for for attending to remove when an agreement has been placed for the items to stay in the property.

There is nothing in sch 5 to allow this fee.

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1992/613/schedule/5/made

 

If the council are not allowing a stage 3 complaint then you have even more cause to complain to the ombudsman

[seanamarts]

Not getting frustrated with you at all

 

they need to read and understand their own interpretations

 

C For one attendance with a vehicle with a view to the removal of goods (where, following the levy, goods are not removed):

This clearly states that after a levy has been made not at the same time. They cannot make the rules fit for their purpose.

[seanamarts]

By the way did the bailiff turn up with a tow truck? if not how can they state that this was a reasonable fee.

 

I will help you write a letter if you wish.

[seanamarts]

I have a feeling that this has been added as in the original here http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1992/613/schedule/5/made it makes no reference about attending with a vehicle.

[seanamarts]

cant take a car in a small van.

 

Ok give me a while and will get some thing drafted up.

[seanamarts]

I have quickly put this letter together, if you wish to change anything or I have missed out anything then please do so. If any other poster feels that I have made a mistake in anything then please do correct it.

 

 

Dear Sir/madam.

 

Re; Escalation stage 3 complaint, acc no; *************

 

In response to your last letter/email dated the ********.

 

I feel that the council have not fully understood the regulated fee's and charges set out by, The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992.

 

I fully understand that I owe the first two visit fee's of £24.50 and £18.00, I am also in agreement with the levy fee of £****.

 

However I have received further advise on the H head fee and the attending to remove fee. I feel that the bailiff Mr ****** ******* has no authority to charge these fee's.

 

The head H fee is charged so the bailiff can cover his cost when items have been recovered and then returned to the debtor, after the debt has been satisfied by the council. This cost would cover the advertisement for the resale of the goods returned to the debtor.

 

As the bailiff had not taken any goods from my property for resale, he cannot charge this fee to cover any cost's that did not incur.

 

I am also in disagreement with the attendance to remove fee.

 

It states in schedule 5©

 

For one attendance with a vehicle with a view to the removal of goods (where, following the levy, goods are not removed):

Reasonable costs and fees incurred.

This is meant to follow the levy once it has been made, not at the same time the levy was made.

The purpose of the levy is to give the debtor time to either make arrangements for a payment plan or for payment to be made.

 

I would like to bring to your attention the case;

In the Central London*county court*- Case No 8CL51015 - Anthony Culligan (Claimant) v 1. Jason Simkin & 2. Marstons (Defendants).

Before District Judge Advent 9th & 24th September 2008

2. The Fee Regulations provide for a distinction between the levying of distress and removal of goods. There is a gap between the two stages. The purpose of this "gap" is to allow the debtor to make payment of what is due after the first stage.

I am sure that you can familiarise yourself with this case.

 

I would also like to bring your attention to;

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1988/2050/article/10/made

No person shall be entitled to charge, or recover from, a tenant any fees, charges or expenses for levying a distress, or for doing any act or thing in relation thereto, other than those authorised by the tables in Appendix 1 to these Rules.

 

Therefore the bailiff, again cannot charge for this fee.

 

I would also like to bring to your attention that the bailiff in question turned up at my property with a small van, if however he was turning up with the intention to remove my vehicle he would not of been able to take my car, that he had levied. So again he cannot make a charge for attending to remove.

 

It also states reasonable cost's. I would like to know how £170 is a reasonable fee and also how the fee is broken down.

Unless of course you agree that this fee should not be included in the charges laid out by the bailiff.

 

I would also like to see a copy of the attending bailiff's certification, I have the right to see this at no cost.

If you feel that my explanations to why I should not be made to pay these fee's not justified still, then you give me no other option other to contact the Local Government Ombudsman.

Yours sincerely.

[seanamarts]

send this to them first, if they still want to play silly buggers then get on to the ombudsman. you need to show the LGO that you have requested the 3rd stage.

[seanamarts]

The council need to be reminded that they are fully responsible for the bailiff, why should you take him to court? they need to be told what is what not listen to what the bailiff tells them.

[seanamarts]

Put at the bottom of the letter that the council needs reminding that they are responsible for the bailiffs actions, this includes the costs that the bailiff has stated.

[seanamarts]

Get the email off now, you have to go through the stage 3 process before contacting the ombudsman, or at least show you have tried, whether the council except this or not they would have been shown a good solid argument and one which the LGO will look into.

 

I have done all I can now to get this stage completed.

[seanamarts]

The ombudsman is your best way forward on this now, Keep us informed as to how you get on.